Posted by Manuel
a resident of South of Midtown
on May 25, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Whatever, here is a quote from the link you posted:

"Hugo Lopez, 17, a graduate of the Center for a New Generation, who now attends St. Francis High School in Mountain View, said he met Rice in Washington, D.C., three years ago as part of the program.

While he was once against the war in Iraq, he now thinks that the country will erupt into a bloody civil war much worse than now if the U.S. military leaves . The teen said although he doesn't support everything the Bush administration does, he's a big fan of Rice and the program she helped start. "

Posted by Whatever
a resident of College Terrace
on May 25, 2007 at 2:52 pm

Thanks, "Manuel".

It's good to see ardent supporters of the War on Muslims using children to make their arguments for prolonging the illegal, immoral occupation of Iraq.

It's also pretty funny to see the same folks pretending that no-one knew Iraq was an extremely factionalized nation, and that no-one had any idea dismantling the Iraq's power structure would lead to bloody civil war.

Posted by Manuel
a resident of South of Midtown
on May 25, 2007 at 4:12 pm

"Whatever", Saddam Hussein was the immoral occupier of Iraq. The U.S. got rid of him, with the help of the Iraquis. Why do you have such a hard time with this fact? If I hear your talk straight, you would prefer Saddam to be back in power. Am I right?

Posted by Whatever
a resident of College Terrace
on May 25, 2007 at 6:38 pm

"Manuel":

Are you confirming you had no idea that dismantling Iraq's entire power structure would lead to inevitable civil war?

Really?

By the way, I've never even heard of a serious, scholarly paper that demonstrates Saddam's specific crimes. For all we know, the War of Muslims has caused a million times the suffering Saddam can be blamed for.

Posted by Danny
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 25, 2007 at 7:14 pm

Using the logic above, how many people do you think are "uncomfortable" with President Bush? Does that mean some other foreign force, such as China, should paratroop in and forcefully remove him from office? Hypocrisy goes both ways.

Posted by Manuel
a resident of South of Midtown
on May 25, 2007 at 7:38 pm

Danny, you seem to be trying to make the case of moral equivalence. Geoarge Bush, whatever you think of him, is no Saddam. There are not 300 thousand dead Americans on the hands of Bush (like there were dead Iraquis for Saddam). Bush was elected in a free form of democracy, even if Gore tried to steal the election (democracy is messy!). Bush did not lynch his political enemies, as did Saddam. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by Manuel
a resident of South of Midtown
on May 26, 2007 at 7:42 am

"Whatver", Churchill aligned with the lesser of two evils under the circumstances. Churchill then warned about the iron curtain after the war, thus starting the Cold War against Stalin. In other words, he chose his enemies, and fought them in the proper order.

You didn't need me to explain such an obvious thing to to you, did you?

Posted by Draw the Line
a resident of Stanford
on May 26, 2007 at 9:45 am

Manuel: Well said. Yes, despite many attempts to indoctrinate otherwise, many of the youth of our country understand basic human psychology and human rights better than their leftist elders, who are still stuck in the fog of the 60s, where the North Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge were the good guys backed by the even better guys of China.

They are also better educated about propoganda, for example framing this as a "war against Muslims". They see that and laugh. They know the majority of Muslims have been and still are being killed by Muslims. The War is BETWEEN Muslims, with America et al on the side of Muslims who want democracy.

I would invite those who want us out RIGHT NOW to be sure to move there as soon as we leave, if we leave before Iraq is stable. If the far left wins this debate, they should be happy to live with their consequences. Unfortunately, they didn't have to live with their consequences in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos etc.

Please note, we have repeatedly said that as soon as the govt of Iraq asks us to leave, we leave. The duly elected govt of Iraq has not asked us to leave. Could there be a reason?

Posted by Draw the Line
a resident of Stanford
on May 26, 2007 at 9:59 am

To Whatever:

Churchill chose the lesser of two evils. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" thinking. Surely you understand that. Nazism was a threat to Stalin AND to Europe/England. Ok, team up with the enemy of your enemy, Stalin, to defeat Nazis, then turn on your former "teammate".

At the time of the end of Nazism, he looked at what was happening in Russia, and spoke. Nobody wanted to "go there". Europe and England were exhausted. Russia was left to its own devices.

We fought Nazis, and won, and stopped the massacres. We didn't fight Communists inside Russia and China, we just fought to contain them.
(which the far left opposed vociferously at every step we took around the world).

I don't know your age, but you sound young. If you want some good reading materials, I will post some book recommendations for you.

Posted by Draw the Line
a resident of Stanford
on May 26, 2007 at 10:06 am

Whatever: You sound like you really believe that what is happening in Iraq is a civil war. You sound like you really believe that it was better under Saddam. You sound like you really believe that the USA went in out of a desire to create an unstable Iraq, because that is so much in our best interest. You sound like you believe that the hundreds of thousands of military who have gone through Iraq have been there only to foster civil war and destroy infrastructure.

You need to read more. You need to make some military friends. You need to meet some Iraqi exiles who came here under Saddam. You need to go to Iraq and meet the Iraqis who are there now, or at least listen to those who write from there.

Posted by Whatever
a resident of College Terrace
on May 26, 2007 at 10:21 am

UK and France had signed a treaty with Poland whereby it was agreed that if a nation invaded Poland, both UK and France would attack Poland's enemy.

On Sept. 1, 1939 Germany invaded Western Poland.

On Sept. 16, 1939 USSR invaded Eastern Poland.

Why did UK and France only attack Germany?

Why didn't Churchill honor the treaty with Poland?

Do you really believe Churchill was convinced the Poles welcomed the Soviet invasion and Soviet war crimes like the Katyn Forest Massacre, where Soviets executed 15,000 Polish officers and pushed their remains into bulldozed pits?

Posted by Danny
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 26, 2007 at 10:31 am

Sorry to be the one to tell you this Manuel, but your political bias has blinded you. I find it humorous that you claim Gore tried to steal the election considering he won the popular vote -- more Americans voted for him than for Bush, plain and simple. How can you try to steal an election when the majority of the population votes for you?

Posted by Manuel
a resident of South of Midtown
on May 26, 2007 at 11:40 am

"I find it humorous that you claim Gore tried to steal the election considering he won the popular vote"

Danny, unless my memory is slipping, Bush won Florida. A recount confirmed this. Then Gore demanded a hand recount of ONLY selective precincts that would favor him. There was an established time constraint to accomplish a hand count, and it couldn't be done in time (and Gore knew this, but he pushed the issue anyway).

Yes, Gore won the popular vote, but we elect presidents based on electoral college votes, not popular votes. Florida was the deciding state, and Gore tried to steal Florida. He was beat down by the Supreme Court.

Posted by Danny
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 26, 2007 at 2:29 pm

More people in the United States voted for Gore than Bush. 'Nuff said. The unfortunate thing is that the majority was right -- it unsettles me a bit to imagine how much better off our country, and the world, would be had the man most of us voted for been the one to enter the White House.

Posted by Objectivity
a resident of St. Claire Gardens
on May 27, 2007 at 10:47 pm

Well, I will venture to say that Iraq was better off under Saddam than it is now under US occupation:

Look, everybody lives in fear over there now. The war in 4 years has already killed about 100 000 Iraqis, directly or indirectly. The average Iraqi is worse off economically and in his daily life than under Saddam. Finally, women were many times safer and freer under Saddam than now.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on May 28, 2007 at 8:02 am

Objectivity, as a method of philosophy, is dependent upon the presupposition distinguishing references in the field of epistemology regarding the ontological status of a possible objective reality, and the state of being objective in regard to references towards whatever is considered as objective reality. In other words, what is real and how do we know what we infer about the real is true? Inherent to the distinction is a paradoxical notion that despite the various meanings or definitions assigned to the concept by various disciplines, schools of thought, or individual philosophers, ultimately there is a body of knowledge referred to which is considered representative of a single reality.

Don't miss out on the discussion!Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online.
Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information
and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.